Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I've been reading (lurking mostly) in the major aikido forums (aikiweb, ebudo, newsgroups et. al.) for over a year, and I've noticed a worrying trend...

A large number of people refer to joint locks and pins as if they're pain submission holds.

Please stick with me while I explain why I have a problem with this (even if it seems just like a difference in language)...

I've only been doing aikido for nearly 2 years (I've changed dojos during that time, so I've experienced some different teaching styles), but I've always seen the following as being the main tenant of aikido:

Centre & Balance

Control yours, take theirs. Now we get to my point - Aikido is about controlling their centre and balance, therefore by definition, joint locks must be about controlling their centre and balance NOT about inflicting pain.

Now for another digression - When wielding a sword, we must think of the bokken or blade as being an extension of our centre, this enables us to 'project' the power of our centre up through our body, through our hands and into our blade. In short, we must connect our weapon to our centre.

In open hand, people talk about connecting one's hand(s) to ones hips - in open hand, the hand is the weapon, so the hand-hip relationship is simply the same weapon-centre relationship.

The logical progression would look something like this:

First I learn to connect my weapon to my centre. Now my weapon is an extension of my centre.
Next I learn to connect my centre to their weapon, through mine.
Finally I must learn to connect my centre to theirs, through my weapon, into theirs then down into their centre.

Obviously all of these are learned together, they just take varying amounts of time to learn.

Given that, lets examine what a joint lock is again. A joint lock is a way of transmitting power from my centre into uke's centre, this is done by locking the hand, then the elbow, then the shoulder, controlling the shoulder gives great control over the centre. The aim of any joint lock applied to the arm is to control the shoulder. A side effect of having our joints locked, is that the body reports the grinding of bones/nerves together as pain, but that's all it is. If your intent is to cause pain, you are likely only controlling a single joint - take nikkyo, if you're so intent on the wrist in order to inflict maximum pain, you are unlikely to be controlling uke's centre, they fall because they're of sound mind and don't really want to put up with the agony or risk of a snapped wrist. On the other hand, if your intent is to take uke's balance and cut their centre (through their wrist) then uke has no choice but to fall, even if it doesn't hurt.

I'm talking a lot about intent here, because there is likely a lot of people who 'intend' to inflict pain, and their focus is the wrist, but have been doing aikido so long they have learned to cut uke's
centre simply through trial-and-error.

But even given all this (which I'm assuming is pretty basic learning, nothing fancy in it), why do you think so many people still refer to locking and pinning as pain submission?

----

Obviously the above reads like a rant (which it is), but what I'm really interested in is have many of you noticed the same trend? what's your take on locking and pinning?

I too at one time assume locks as pain submission and the desired outcome is that the uke will tap out due to pain. But then after reading some of the post around the forum, I realised that pain alone is not enough as per discussion in the aikido vs. drunk and druggies thread.

By going back to basics... aikido osae is literally immobilization. This means locking out the joint physiologically such as hyper extension where the uke cannot move the limbs physically and not due to pain alone.

Hence I would agree with you that pain alone is a poor motivator to deter any aggresive intend (if this is what the gist of your post is all about).

To illustrate... just recently in class as we are doing gyaku yokomenuchi (reverse side strike) kuzushi nage. I have done this technique countless times and it was not something new. In my mind, the essential ingredient of the technique is kuzushi (breaking of balance) and some wrist manipulation. It usually work.

However, the adjutant sensei was being nasty that night and he said, "Stop Stop, Not like this". Then he point to the logo of our dojo and said do you understand? What is there to understand, I thought. It is only a plain image of an eagle pearching on a branch. Then he showed me his variation of kuzushi. It was a whole new experience.

Due to the added element of very strong grip, my whole limb was in his control, I could not twist nor turn at all if he did not allow me to. Then I realised what he meant by the image of the eagle. One must have very strong grip like those of an eagle's claws.

This bring me back the thread, immobilization is the key not pain. So much to learn, so little time. Sigh.

"A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence."

I too at one time assume locks as pain submission and the desired outcome is that the uke will tap out due to pain. But then after reading some of the post around the forum, I realised that pain alone is not enough as per discussion in the aikido vs. drunk and druggies thread.

By going back to basics... aikido osae is literally immobilization. This means locking out the joint physiologically such as hyper extension where the uke cannot move the limbs physically and not due to pain alone.

Hence I would agree with you that pain alone is a poor motivator to deter any aggresive intend (if this is what the gist of your post is all about).

To illustrate... just recently in class as we are doing gyaku yokomenuchi (reverse side strike) kuzushi nage. I have done this technique countless times and it was not something new. In my mind, the essential ingredient of the technique is kuzushi (breaking of balance) and some wrist manipulation. It usually work.

However, the adjutant sensei was being nasty that night and he said, "Stop Stop, Not like this". Then he point to the logo of our dojo and said do you understand? What is there to understand, I thought. It is only a plain image of an eagle pearching on a branch. Then he showed me his variation of kuzushi. It was a whole new experience.

Due to the added element of very strong grip, my whole limb was in his control, I could not twist nor turn at all if he did not allow me to. Then I realised what he meant by the image of the eagle. One must have very strong grip like those of an eagle's claws.

This bring me back the thread, immobilization is the key not pain. So much to learn, so little time. Sigh.

Boon.

Hi Boon,

I`m at odds with the vice like grip . I don`t disagree that it can be very beneficial in some instances, and indeed required in others, but I think that is largely due to me not having moved well enough in the first instance. My argument being that if you grip hard on uke, it actually gives uke something to resist and fight against, the softer and lighter your touch the less he has to fight with.

Colbs,

For me, the pain in osae and kime waza is a byproduct, it is not required to be effective, but will be there for a lot of people . I agree that many people look to apply pain rather than look to apply the technique, which is a large part of why people struggle to apply techniques, their brain gets caught up in a vicious circle - need to apply pain - need twist hard - not working - need to apply more pain - need to twist harder - not working - need to .........

If you work on movement and kuzushi first, the technique will become easier to apply, the pain will be a result of their actions fighting to escape rather than you twisting harder.

Regards

Bryan

A difficult problem is easily solved by asking yourself the question, "Just how would the Lone Ranger handle this?"

I'd say "good connection" rather than "vice-like grip". If the eagle gripped the branch that hard, he'd find it difficult to fly away if he had to! Good connection allows for movement, vice-like grip restricts movement. Ask your teacher what he thinks

Ruth has a great point about the grip concept. From my little experience a vice like grip may involve a lot of arm muscle use, which is generally not encouraged where I train as it can start one on the path to "muscling" a technique.

As far as the pain idea goes I agree with Peter (of course ). The way I was taught is that there are pins/immobilisations (osae waza) and locks/submission techniques (kime waza???) the only difference being the degree to which one carried the joint in the particular technique - enough to control = pin, enough to cause pain and damage = lock/submission. Both have their purpose and place in training and proper kuzushi or taking of uke's centre as some put it, should actually be an integral part of every effective Aikido technique imo. Kuzushi is not an option, it is necessary.

As for pain being a part of it, I'm not one of those aikifaeries - pain is good, I was merely ranting about some people's _intent_.

The best example of this is probably yonkyo, I've heard lots of people claim that if you don't have the nerve, you aint got yonkyo... However, the nerve is just (as Peter put it) gravy, if you've locked up or pinned the shoulder, it's yonkyo pain or not....

Regarding strong grips, if you grip with your shoulders then yes you're going to screw up your shape, grip from the hips however and you have a good shape and strong grip. Have the intent (or as a lot of people say, 'feeling') of gripping with your hips and eventually your grip will become vice-like - without causing all the arms and shoulders to lock up.

In case you hadn't noticed :P I'm a big fan of intent... It probably comes from the fact I used to train somewhere that I now feel had the wrong intent with a few things, now I've changed dojos and picked up a much better intent I've found my aikido has come along heaps in a relatively short period of time... I guess if you get it right in your mind eventually your body starts to get bits right too.

Because of that, I get worried when I look at threads here on locking and pinning and see quite a few people talking about using pain to get it to work - so I figured I should rant a bit about intent in the hopes that some of them might read it and have a think...

As for why pain is useless, as pointed out earlier the aikido vs druggies thread has some good arguments in this regard.

I`m at odds with the vice like grip . I don`t disagree that it can be very beneficial in some instances, and indeed required in others, but I think that is largely due to me not having moved well enough in the first instance. My argument being that if you grip hard on uke, it actually gives uke something to resist and fight against, the softer and lighter your touch the less he has to fight with.
Bryan

Hi Bryan,

Yesterday I took your argument to my sensei. So here goes...

I said: "Sensei, some guy I met over the internet says that strong grip gives uke something to fight against and may actually make the technique more difficult"

Sensei said," Is it true? Lend me your arm, and resist with all your might."

I thought, "Oh Sh@t, why I always get into such trouble. Bryan you owe me a megapint Guiness for this"

He used katatemochin hijiate kokyunage to illustrate. First he used a loose grip, not much of a technique I thought until he atemi the elbow joint, I have to go forward. Then he said, I will now try the strong grip. The same technique, he grip very hard, twist my arm, very tight, and difficult to move and followed by a atemi to the elbow. At the last moment he let go and whew I can flip over...

I said: "Sensei, some guy I met over the internet says that strong grip gives uke something to fight against and may actually make the technique more difficult"

Sensei said," Is it true? Lend me your arm, and resist with all your might."

I thought, "Oh Sh@t, why I always get into such trouble. Bryan you owe me a megapint Guiness for this"

Hi Boon,

Anytime, hope to share it with you soon. Reminds me of the time someone asked one of my early teachers "what`s nikkyo" Don`t do it my friend, and don`t go and tell your Sensei that some guy on the internet said..........

Quote:

Xu Wenfung wrote:

He used katatemochin hijiate kokyunage to illustrate. First he used a loose grip, not much of a technique I thought until he atemi the elbow joint, I have to go forward.

I did say soft grip, not loose , there`s a subtle difference. Having said that, I am thinking more as I am writing and maybe there isn`t that much of a difference between my soft grip and your vice grip. The problems with interpretation of written text, my thoughts when I originally read your post had an image of hunched shoulders squeezing hard as he gripped. My image of a soft grip (not loose) is much like that of the old O-Ring test, do you know it? See here . This leads me to think that there actually might not be much of a difference between what I am aiming for and what your Sensei is doing. If you are soft and relaxed in your grip it can still be vice like.

Quote:

Xu Wenfung wrote:

Then he said, I will now try the strong grip. The same technique, he grip very hard, twist my arm, very tight, and difficult to move and followed by a atemi to the elbow. At the last moment he let go and whew I can flip over...

I`ve got that original image back reading this text I go back to my original statement about giving uke something to fight against, what I didn`t say was that even though you have something to fight against, doesn`t mean you can . If he is stronger than you, and/ or he has moved correctly (I did say that I probably hadn`t at this point), then it is unlikely that you can resist.

My post didn`t say that it was wrong to have a vice like grip , just that I am at odds with it because I feel that it gives uke the possibility to resist, especially if I have not moved or done everything correctly, there becomes a point that the technique may not work or I make it harder for myself to make it work.

I like this internet knowledge base, I can glean a lot of information from it, the hard part is interpreting the info in the context it is given, and even harder to convey ones own thoughts in a way that they are interpreted as intended. So much easier to be in the same room to explain with actions, don`t you think ?

Hope you have a very happy new year my friend, and best wishes to everyone else reading my babble.

Regards

Bryan

A difficult problem is easily solved by asking yourself the question, "Just how would the Lone Ranger handle this?"

In case you hadn't noticed :P I'm a big fan of intent... It probably comes from the fact I used to train somewhere that I now feel had the wrong intent with a few things, now I've changed dojos and picked up a much better intent I've found my aikido has come along heaps in a relatively short period of time... I guess if you get it right in your mind eventually your body starts to get bits right too.

Because of that, I get worried when I look at threads here on locking and pinning and see quite a few people talking about using pain to get it to work - so I figured I should rant a bit about intent in the hopes that some of them might read it and have a think...

Intent is a whole new subject on its own . Some folk say that intent doesn't matter - just shut up and train. This has never worked for me, because if somebody intends to do me damage, they usually can. Then I can't train until I've healed. Some folk say that this is part of training, but I have yet to understand what I should learn from being deliberately damaged and left unable to train! (I don't mean accidental damage such as bruises and scrapes - that is a part of training which I totally accept, and it doesn't keep me off the mat ).

There are basically two types of people training - those who are in it for themselves, and those who are in it for the group. The first set of students are very concerned with learning techniques and the application thereof as hard as possible. They don't understand the concept of blending and they are not smooth. For them, good Aikido is getting uke to fall down any way they can. If they damage you, it's your fault and they are not going to change anything about the way they train, thank you very much.

The second group of students understand that learning Aikido is a co-operative exercise, and they enjoy the interaction between themselves and their training partners. They take care of their fellow students because they enjoy learning and want to have partners to train with! They are capable of adjusting the intensity of their training up and down, so they are equally at home training with a 9 year old kid beginner, or an athletic adult 5th dan.

I agree with you that intent is important, because it enables somebody to develop into a well-rounded Aikido student, if they choose to.

I agree that overemphazing the pain aspect will lead to crappy technique. In my opinion, at the beginning stage pain in the joint techs should be a kind of stretch. A person's wrists will get a lot stronger through joint tech practice.

Past the beginner stage, I feel that working with fear is extremely important. Pain is an excellent way to start to deal with it. I just watched a tv program on a martial art they are calling chanbara, working with padded swords and a helmet. The point is that one can practice really hard and no one gets hurt. I think it is excellent but the lack of pain means the lack of fear which is detrimental to progression in the MAs.

I completely agree with Bryan on a soft grip. I just think that it is important for beginners to overdo the grip in the beginning and then soften up. They learn the feeling of a relaxed powerful grip better this way than the opposite. Also, at a higher level, giving your partner a strong grip to resist is a good way to set up henka waza. The late Tohei Akira Shihan often showed techniques from nikkyo.

Due to the added element of very strong grip, my whole limb was in his control, I could not twist nor turn at all if he did not allow me to. Then I realised what he meant by the image of the eagle. One must have very strong grip like those of an eagle's claws.

Sorry mate, this, I do not agree with you. It is not so much due to the vice like grip that you couldn't twist nor turn. It is more due to your unbalanced state and his extension. You assume that it was his vice like grip because you felt his grip and got your mind attached to it similar to the time when you first started training aikido and a strong or experienced uke give you a vice like grip in katate-dori. I believe in a firm but not a vice grip. A vice like grip will definitely hinder the flow of "ki".

Quote:

This bring me back the thread, immobilization is the key not pain. So much to learn, so little time. Sigh.

Boon.

Immobilization - taking away the opponent's will to fight is definitely the key. Agreed absolutely.

Regards and happy new year (with lots of wonderful and rewarding trainings).

David Y

P.S. As for the symbol (the eagle) for your dojo/organization's crest - I think your dojo-cho or soke would have the real explanation.

I think that taking someone's center is not a physics problem. Nor is it acheived by any strategy other than "taking someones center". If the path to taking someones center is through pain, then you have correctly taken their center. If the path to taking someones center is though leverage, then it is correct as well. Same for just looking at someone in the right way and getting what you want. I think this understanding is most useful.

Wasn't it stated by more than one shihan that O-sensei had a vise-like grip or that his grip was like a vise. And yes he also had the ability to drain your power by being relaxed, but that does not take away the account of the people (Saito, Shioda and Stevens comes to mind) who said that the founder would demonstrate proper grip (vise!!) when he felt the students didn't hold properly.
I think it is safe to say that there are differences in grips and grips. There are also more than one dimension to holding correctly within the framework of attacking within aikido and defending within aikido.
Both (all) aspects needs to be trained separately and disected, but they need to be present at all times.

I`m at odds with the vice like grip . I don`t disagree that it can be very beneficial in some instances, and indeed required in others, but I think that is largely due to me not having moved well enough in the first instance. My argument being that if you grip hard on uke, it actually gives uke something to resist and fight against, the softer and lighter your touch the less he has to fight with.

Colbs,

For me, the pain in osae and kime waza is a byproduct, it is not required to be effective, but will be there for a lot of people . I agree that many people look to apply pain rather than look to apply the technique, which is a large part of why people struggle to apply techniques, their brain gets caught up in a vicious circle - need to apply pain - need twist hard - not working - need to apply more pain - need to twist harder - not working - need to .........

If you work on movement and kuzushi first, the technique will become easier to apply, the pain will be a result of their actions fighting to escape rather than you twisting harder.

Regards

Bryan

Interestingly enough, in jujitsu, the focus is on firstly causing pain, then taking kuzushi. Without the pain, you ain't gonna get kuzushi - simply coz uke is in a position to resist. However, when they're in pain, they sure ain't gonna resist - well, it's hurting coz they're resisting

Whilst it is true that you may not always get the pain factor happening, you should try to work on getting their kuzushi at the same time.

From The Art of Aikido by K. Ueshiba, pg 70
...In Aikido we never start from a static position. Applying the principle of circular movement, the response to an attack is immediate, and the opponent never has a chance to get a firm grip. One movement flows into another until an attack is completely neutralized, and there are no fixed patterns to adhere to. Hence, in Aikido there are no complicated ground grappling techniques, no unusual chokes and holds, and no fancy kicks.

Similar to Jujutsu, in Aikido we have controlling pinning techniques, but in Aikido, unlike Jujutsu, the pins are never applied in a forced reverse direction. The holds and pins of Aikido are always applied towards the natural bend of the joint, using just enough pressure to render resistance futile. This use of a normal bend prevents unnecessary injury, and in fact works better than harsh, bone-breaking holds, which are difficult to apply.

...Solid ki breath-power, combined with an open mind and a strong body, will improve your character, the main goal of Aikido. This attitude is what most distinguishes Aikido from Jujutsu.

A useful definition of the difference between kiai-jutsu and aiki-jutsu would be: "in kiai-jutsu the mind follows the power of the body, and the force is expressed externally; in aiki-jutsu the body follows the power of the mind, and the opponent is controlled internally."

It is not practice that makes perfect, it is correct practice that makes perfect.About KiAbout You

"The holds and pins of Aikido are always applied towards the natural bend of the joint..."

I have read this too. And I remember folks trying to say it to me a long time ago as well. It's a fairly common view I think - even if it is not shared by every aikidoka. However, I can't imagine that any person specializing in biomechanics would agree with it. I would have to say that by scientific standards this is simply NOT true. From my own training perspective, actually, it's a crazy proposition, and it is thus one of the reasons why I personally feel that Kisshomaru Ueshiba is a watershed in Aikido history - that he did a lot of inventing and reinventing when it comes to Aikido (stuff we are all tied to today) but that he tried to give all props to Osensei (or to "Aikido") for cultural and/or political reasons.

I'm not out to say that all "invention" is a bad thing, but I think it should be based in some sort of reason and/or some sort of awareness of the greater historical and cultural context. And I just don't see that awareness, for example, when it come to stating a position that posits that Aikido's waza are somehow so structurally different from the waza of other Japanese martial arts that the latter can be considered antithetical to the former. The truth is, even when allowing for the huge amount of variation that we must when it comes to addressing the influence of personal perspectives, Aikido has no monopoly on kote-gaeshi, nikyo, sankyo, etc., nor over the manner in which they are executed.

Personally, I don't think we should go around spouting this view that Kisshomaru tries to present in his book. I think we are all more aware of other arts now, and thus of Aikido as well. In short, Aikido joint manipulations DO NOT go with the natural bend of the joint and other Japanese martial arts DO have the same tactical architectures as Aikido (allowing for instructor variation of both Aikido and non-Aikido arts).

My instructor was watching a Steven Seagal seminar tape and saw that the first four techniques were from Wally Jay's Small Circle Jujutsu. Like most people, Seagal didn't mention where he learned those techniques from, so almost anyone who didn't know about Wally Jay, could assume those were Aikido techniques. I've been thinking this might be how Jujutsu techniques are picked-up and end up being shown as an Aikido technique.

I've seen locking/pinning techniques that used levers or went against the joint. Even though these techniques were shown in an Aikido dojo, I'm unconvinced they are Aikido in origin. They might be Aiki-jitsu in origin, but probably not Aikido.

To "prove" that Aikido techniques do go against the joint, you would have to document a technique that went against the joint. Ideally the documentation would include Budo or other early works on Aikido. Off hand, I can't think of such a technique.

Like Kisshomaru Ueshiba noted, the real difference is the attitude of the practitioner. However everybody isn't in Aikido for character development. Some people just want to kick ass and take names later. People like that are really bad candidates to spend years pondering over the exact way to lead an uke.

BTW the quote was from a section titled Differences between Jujutsu and Aikido

It is not practice that makes perfect, it is correct practice that makes perfect.About KiAbout You

I've seen locking/pinning techniques that used levers or went against the joint. Even though these techniques were shown in an Aikido dojo, I'm unconvinced they are Aikido in origin. They might be Aiki-jitsu in origin, but probably not Aikido.

To "prove" that Aikido techniques do go against the joint, you would have to document a technique that went against the joint. Ideally the documentation would include Budo or other early works on Aikido. Off hand, I can't think of such a technique.

Like Kisshomaru Ueshiba noted, the real difference is the attitude of the practitioner.

on both points for Aikido, not going against the joint and attitude, Kisshomaru Ueshiba and Koichi Tohei are in complete aggreement.
Maybe it's not shared by every "aikidoka", but that these two men agree
on this perhaps should make those who practice aikido consider how they
practice and what their goals are in practice.

The only problem with biomechanics I see is the ways some I have seen practice ikkyo,nikkyo,sankyo that does go against the joint even though there exits just as or more effective methods that go with the joint. Certainly some displays of kotegaeshi or shihonage crank the joints against their natural direction forcing ukes to be highly trained to avoid injury. And what some call rokkyo seems to be effectively operating on hyperextension of the elbow joint in a form of an arm bar (not part of our syllabus but some Aikikai teachers do it). The open question in my mind is whether these practices are a legitimate path for Aikido or just misunderstandings about taking up slack or people introducing alterations/techniques for various reasons. Personally, it's not the path I am interested in but may be why some have trouble seeing distinctions between aikido and jujutsu.

on both points for Aikido, not going against the joint and attitude, Kisshomaru Ueshiba and Koichi Tohei are in complete aggreement.
Maybe it's not shared by every "aikidoka", but that these two men agree
on this perhaps should make those who practice aikido consider how they
practice and what their goals are in practice.

And the fact that other "students turned teachers" of the founder of Aikido (just like in the above case of K. Tohei and K. Ueshiba) may agree that going against the joint is part of the technical repertoire of Aikido "this perhaps should make those who practice aikido consider how they practice and what their goals are in practice" as well.

Of course another question is whose technical model do we want to take for a definition of "Aikido"tm and then at what point during the person's training/teaching do we want to use as the example of what constitutes "Aikido"tm technique.

Imho there is no better example or definition of what Aikido "is" or "is not" other than its Founder. I mean, he is the one who did the defining of the philosophical and technical basis of the art to begin with. Everyone else learned what he taught and put their own spin on things based on personal perceptions, previous training and realities. I don't think the "observer effect" can be totally removed from any sort of transmission system that involves the passing on of physical movements and thinking, as we all do so in slightly different ways whether we realise or not.

As such, what K. Ueshiba and K. Tohei may show (or agree on) regarding "what is Aikido" and what folks like R. Shirata, G. Shioda, M. Mochizuki or K. Tomiki may agree on as "what is Aikido" based on what they personally experienced to be "Aikido"tm as shown by the Founder at the point in his life that they trained, will both be correct as far as these students are concerned, but will both be very different in expression in many ways as well from each other.

Before we can go labelling what is and is not Aikido we have to precisely define Aikido. Not "our" Aikido, but Aikido. If we see Aikido as a collection of principles and philosophies and not a collection of techniques, then "what is Aikido" becomes a concept of much speculation and interpretation based on the principles it claims to adhere to.

Since Aikido had evolved from Jujutsu (of which Judo is another evolution) there are students of Ueshiba M. who placed the technical repertoire of Aikido precisely within a certain sector in the scheme of all Jujutsu techniques which consisted of Nage, Katame, Kansetsu and Atemi Waza as we can see here - http://homepage2.nifty.com/shodokan/en/kyogi4.html . In this categorisation, there are joint techniques that go "against" the movement of the joint.

As far as "legitimate paths" go, well it all depends on where you sit imo.

I think Larry has made a very good point regarding the nature of "our Aikido" and "Aikido." But I still think we can talk about the mechanics of something without having to address the definition of "Aikido" and thus the legitimacy of any one type of "Aikido."

Though I have seen Kisshomaru and K. Tohei do techniques like Rokkyo, I don't think we even have to go into this type of "non-pillar" waza in order to realize that Aikido waza do not go with the "natural bend" of the joint. We can simply take kote-gaeshi, nikyo, sankyo, yonkyo, gokyo, etc. - which I'm sure we all practice as well. Because there is no true ball and socket joint involved biomechanically, movement engaged at the joint will at some point travel against the structure of the joint and/or go beyond the joint's range of movement (hyper-extension). It is precisely because this happens that a nage can "connect" with uke's center via a limb (as was mentioned earlier in this thread). If the structural architecture of the joint is not in some way "locked" (i.e. falling outside of the natural bend of the point of articulation) energy would stay in the joint - not traveling anywhere. It's basic science - regardless of what Kisshomaru might say, he's wrong.

In light of the science, I think we should understand Kisshomaru's point as being akin to every such point made by a Japanese founder or doshu when asked to explain his art to the general public. Going back hundreds of years, one can read these same type of statements - where a martial artist over-generalizes (inaccurately) his art in order to contrast it against other arts (which are also over generalized) in order to legitimate his own art through difference (only the difference doesn't really exist).

I think some people are getting a little too soft. Obviously, you can't infilct pain when training, but in a real fight situation,(which is what Aikido is supposed to be preparing you for), it would be essential.

Interesting discussion. Maybe the fault (as so often) lies in the translation. I prefer to think of "working with the natural" as unforced movement. Sure the joint locks eventually but it doesn't have to be through a movement against the joint, joints will always lock at the end of natural range of motion and perhaps that is whats meant by working with rather than against the joint.

P.S. To talk about Ueshiba K. being "soft" is also lost in the translation I think. The last time I received Nikkyo from him (late 1980's) it certainly was not pain-free.